One Size Doesn’t Fit All
For those who haven’t read ‘The Road to Serfdom’ by F.A. Hayek, let me recommend it to you. It is one of the cornerstones of modern fiscal conservative thought. Hayek wrote it in the 1940’s and does an excellent job of explaining why government cannot do certain things without detriment to society as a whole. So I was surprised to find in Chapter Nine (Security and Freedom), the second page, the following passage: “Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.”
Hayek is referring to accident and health insurance and minimum amounts of food, shelter and clothing. As Obamacare is now with us, perhaps an examination of how universal healthcare should actually be provided is more important than whether. But whether is still important to many. I find that thoughts on ‘whether’ often depend on which side of the checkbook the person arguing stands. I return to the lawyers.
Making a substantial income from the work of others, the lawyers remind me of their payments into the social security system. More importantly, they insist that they are owed money in return for their ‘contribution’. Now you know as well as I that if it was a ‘voluntary’ contribution, the lawyers wouldn’t have given a dime to support others – so it is not a contribution; it is a tax. But the lawyers, as almost all people, see something in it for themselves and so they want their share. But they’re fiscal conservatives; just ask them. And this is true in most cases. We want government spending cut, unless it affects us directly. (With apologies to Vonnegut) And so it goes. With so many wanting so much it is easy to understand how we approach the culmination of Tocqueville’s prediction on voting ourselves broke. And yet we persist.
It becomes obvious everyone wants something for themselves from government. Where then is the problem with wanting something for all? It is a subtle distinction of morality or, more accurately, immorality. If we agree that certain social programs we want for ourselves must be made available to all, the question quickly arises of how best to implement such programs.
On the government side we have at least four major programs to examine for efficacy, financial solvency and (to make an interesting use of the environmentalist’s mantra) sustainability. They are Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. A cursory examination of each will find welfare is the only one which meets the criteria of solvency and sustainability. I can’t say that any of them are efficacious and it has finally become common knowledge that Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security are so burdensome and onerous as to be impossible to maintain. Unfortunately it is the same people who write and control these programs who have afflicted us with Obamacare.
On the private side, we have various insurance companies which have operated their programs and maintained financial solvency and sustainability. In addition, with these programs individuals have the right to private action, changing their coverage to suit their situation and wishes. This is not now true with government programs and never will be.
It seems obvious that it would be very simple to require insurance for all, while allowing individuals the ability to make choices to suit their personal desires. Take Blue Cross. If everyone had to sign up, their insurance payments would be based on ability to pay. Those on welfare would obviously have their payments made by the taxpayers. That being true, their insurance should be a bit different than others. Cosmetic surgery should be out, co-pays should be low, physicals free, with limits on expensive procedures under particular circumstances.
In fact, Medicaid, as it was originally operated, would be an idea of how it should work. Concurrently, those who pay their own insurance premiums should be able to choose better programs. Expensive cancer treatments, heart transplants, etc., would be available for the right price. No one wishes a one-size-fits-all, and there shouldn’t be one.
So why are we going to one-size-fits-all? The answer is simple. The people in government want to control your life as opposed to help you live it.
But considering themselves elite, remember this, they often exempt themselves from the things they inflict upon you.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=4193
